It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder
What do you theorize it was? Most people saw a jetliner.
i don't know, but the speed that it was supposedly going would be too hard to control at just a few feet off the ground. have you ever tried to control a plane horizontally even in a cessna? i have pretty good hand eye coordination and i had an impossible time keeping it perfectly horizontal, which means that it dipped a good 6 or more feet at a time often....the air pockets make it impossible for it to be controlled to that kind of precision, i can only imagine how hard it would be trying to keep it perfectly horizontal 4 feet from the ground......especially while hitting light poles and at 530 mph, impossible.....no one can do that. you have to push and pull the "steering wheel" in order to compensate air pockets....it's just not possible.......he would have crashed right into the ground as soon as he hit a light pole......
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder
What do you theorize it was? Most people saw a jetliner.
i don't know, but the speed that it was supposedly going would be too hard to control at just a few feet off the ground. have you ever tried to control a plane horizontally even in a cessna? i have pretty good hand eye coordination and i had an impossible time keeping it perfectly horizontal, which means that it dipped a good 6 or more feet at a time often....the air pockets make it impossible for it to be controlled to that kind of precision, i can only imagine how hard it would be trying to keep it perfectly horizontal 4 feet from the ground......especially while hitting light poles and at 530 mph, impossible.....no one can do that. you have to push and pull the "steering wheel" in order to compensate air pockets....it's just not possible.......he would have crashed right into the ground as soon as he hit a light pole......
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder
What do you theorize it was? Most people saw a jetliner.
i don't know, but the speed that it was supposedly going would be too hard to control at just a few feet off the ground. have you ever tried to control a plane horizontally even in a cessna? i have pretty good hand eye coordination and i had an impossible time keeping it perfectly horizontal, which means that it dipped a good 6 or more feet at a time often....the air pockets make it impossible for it to be controlled to that kind of precision, i can only imagine how hard it would be trying to keep it perfectly horizontal 4 feet from the ground......especially while hitting light poles and at 530 mph, impossible.....no one can do that. you have to push and pull the "steering wheel" in order to compensate air pockets....it's just not possible.......he would have crashed right into the ground as soon as he hit a light pole......
The plane was close to the ground for less than two seconds how many control inputs can you do in two seconds.
Originally posted by galdur
The official story is physically impossible
Originally posted by Ozvaldo
So,... how do you explain there is NO DAMAGE either side of the whole? You seem to have conveniently avoided answering this question, and also failed to provide any proof there was damage from the wings.
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by patternfinder
What do you theorize it was? Most people saw a jetliner.
i don't know, but the speed that it was supposedly going would be too hard to control at just a few feet off the ground. have you ever tried to control a plane horizontally even in a cessna? i have pretty good hand eye coordination and i had an impossible time keeping it perfectly horizontal, which means that it dipped a good 6 or more feet at a time often....the air pockets make it impossible for it to be controlled to that kind of precision, i can only imagine how hard it would be trying to keep it perfectly horizontal 4 feet from the ground......especially while hitting light poles and at 530 mph, impossible.....no one can do that. you have to push and pull the "steering wheel" in order to compensate air pockets....it's just not possible.......he would have crashed right into the ground as soon as he hit a light pole......
Do you have a theory of what it was? I understand that you can't answer because you want it to be something else but can't come up with anything other than a jetliner that could do that damage. You think that a breakaway light pole would cause that aircraft to immediately nosedive into the ground. You don't have much feel for this physics stuff do you?
You and others say it is impossible because of "air pockets." How many air pockets do you think there were that near the ground? Do you know what "ground effect" is?
Go back and review your data and come up with a theory of what could have done what was done while accounting for all the physical evidence.
Originally posted by spoor
Originally posted by galdur
The official story is physically impossible
what a silly claim, what have you got to back it up?
Why ignore all the physical evidence that it was a 757? How do you explain the 757 engines, seats, undercarriage? how do you explain the DNA from the passengers on flight 77 that was found?
Originally posted by patternfinder
2 seconds, hmmmm i won't even comment on that one....not worth the time....next?????
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine
It was in effect landing. It was flying horizontally feet off the ground at 530 mph. This is a physical impossibility. It´´s third grade stuff.
So what should it have done that was physically possible? Should it have flown over the building, exploded in mid air, or crashed into the ground?
Originally posted by waypastvne
Originally posted by Ozvaldo
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Ozvaldo
So,... how do you explain there is NO DAMAGE either side of the whole? You seem to have conveniently avoided answering this question, and also failed to provide any proof there was damage from the wings.
Which hole are you talking about
this one:
Or this one.
Impossible to tell what's going on in the 1st pic.
As for the 2nd one?? It proves my point EXACTLY. No marks on the wall WHATSOEVER next to the hole.
As for the long white thingy the red arrow points too? lol - clutching straws.
Thanks for your time though, have a great day.
edit on 25-8-2011 by Ozvaldo because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Yankee451
Originally posted by pteridine
Originally posted by galdur
reply to post by pteridine
It was in effect landing. It was flying horizontally feet off the ground at 530 mph. This is a physical impossibility. It´´s third grade stuff.
So what should it have done that was physically possible? Should it have flown over the building, exploded in mid air, or crashed into the ground?
I think that was discussed in the link.
Let me state my position:.
The media have been run by the CIA since the 40s.
The Internet is part of media.
I contend the Truth Movement and conspiracy sites like this one are part of the CIA's disinformation program, with representatives on both sides tasked with directing and managing public perception and directing suspicion away from the media.
I contend since most of the content on this 911 forum is limited to anything but the media, that this is an example of that effort, and that posters who continually derail conversations with irrelevant comments are as well.
Originally posted by patternfinder
i can't explain any of that because you didn't provide any sources of these accusations....i haven't heard of any of that yet, please enlighten us....
Originally posted by Ozvaldo
As for the 2nd one?? It proves my point EXACTLY. No marks on the wall WHATSOEVER next to the hole.
Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Ozvaldo
That looks like the exit hole, Ozzie. Try again. Thanks for your time.